About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
, foreign policy tends to either stain or illuminate a president's legacy. time will tell which foreign policy position will define the obama years. joining us to discuss from washington is former assistant secretary of state and professor at george washington university, professor pj crowley. professor, thank you for joining us. >> hello. >> pj as we talk about the legacy of the obama doctrine, vis-a-vis our war on terrorists drones. the attacks were motivated to do what they did by the wars in iraq and afghanistan. i'll quote a little bit from that story. the 19-year-old suspect in the boston marathon bombings has told interrogators that the american wars in iraq and afghanistan, motivated he and his brother to carry out the attack. what do you make of that, pj? >> i'm not surprised at all that has been a motivator for jihadists around the world, particularly the u.s. invasion of iraq in 2003. so this just continues a theme, and it's not even unique to the united states. faisal shazad, the times square bomber, said he was motivated by the ongoing drone campaign in pakistan. >> wes, as
as normal and sweet. >>brian: is there a chance they were normal men and did our foreign policy play into this? a foreign c.i.a. operative, head of the osama bin laden unit, what went into the mind set of these two that you can ascertain from what you know? >> i think we're going to find because of the internet age, because of the rapidity of communications, the grievances of the arab world against the united states in terms of our foreign policy, whether it's being on the arab peninsula, supporting the saudi tyranny, supporting the israelis is now a common thread across the muslim world. as long as that foreign policy stays in place, we need to realize that we're cultivating enemies. this is going to continue both at home and abroad for a very long time. >>john: we should expect more of these kinds of attacks? >> without a doubt, sir. this is no reason to believe our domestic population of young male muslims is going to be immune from the propaganda of al qaeda and other groups that has worked everywhere in the world. this is just a problem that america needs to face. we don't neces
security and foreign policy issues as opposed to his very robust domestic agenda? jon: lindsey graham was on with his last hour and pretty critical about the job the department of homeland security -- which, after all, is an arm of the administration -- did in the tsarnaev case. want to play a clip. >> my problem with this administration is their policies are failing. they do not believe that we're at war. they ignored signs and warnings from libya. we haven't had one person detained as an enemy combatant for intelligence-gathering purposes since he's been president. jon: is this starting to resonate with voters, do you think? >> i don't know yet that we've seen that. but we could see it over time. i think it pretty much depends on how the public views the president's handling of these incidents, and do they think that the president is keeping them safe. as we saw under president bush, you can have a horrific attack on the home lambed, and if you respond -- homeland, and if you respond in a way the public feels you should respond, they like your response, they're going to feel good ab
's investment in foreign-policy is national security insurance. there is nothing foreign about foreign policy anymore. smartcan make the small,. w vestments upfront and avoid more costly conflicts and greater burdens down the road. , we'vepast few months seen developments underscore the state -- stakes for having a strong and -- strong american presence in the world. that was a positive step toward stability in the volatile region of the world where we need partnerships. the committee is more than immersed in suyyruiaia. we have treated millions to humanitarian relief -- we have provided millions to humanitarian relief. i expect we will talk about syria somewhat today. having returned from beijing and north koreathe issue took center stage, we are reminded once again that america is the guardian of global security. we should be proud of that. one not turn our back on keys nor will we hesitate what we need to do to defend our allies. if budget is an analyst patient of our values and priorities -- this budget is an illustration of our values and priorities. i have a record of wanting to do defi
.o. toward national security and foreign policy which is to say to lighten the american footprint in the reasoning, but to deal with these threats of so that's one point. the other thing is, i don't think that barack obama considers the drones a panacea in the war on terror. and one of his top national security advisers said to me, he sees it as an important tactical weapon that has strategic implications. but mostly, he sees it as an opportunity to try to prevent the next attack in the united states. so he was pretty hard nosed about that. so that's where he is. >> richard, you know, i can make moral and legal arguments for codifying our drone program. the rules of engagement and i have in the past. there is also a very practical argument for getting this down on paper. and increasing the transparency on it. when, not if, when bad actors get their hands on the same technology that we have, and use it in terrible ways, we really lose our ability to lean on our allies and world bodies and ask them to sanction or punish these bad actors for an unaccountable drone program when the ma
issues in difficult american foreign policy. when do we get involved in an atrocity going on within someone else's country. that's a very tough question. would we have intervened in germany in 1938 if we knew what was going on. i think we all like to say we we d have and if we could, would have stopped it. it presupposes and the implication is we have a right do that anywhere in the world if there's an atrocity going on. that a u reflect on little bit? >> thank you, senator. defined one t significant kpant issue -- of militaryal basis intervention in the country. certainly every nation has a themselves in t their own history of self-defense. but to answer your question, you of the dimensions of his that you laid out, as did amplify on psey who cuts back ations and on the quell, when do we do this. what basis? we canthere a frame work follow? y answer is you start with the realities. these are both imperfect different situations. out, i dempsey laid think, rather clearly some of he dimensions of each of the countries in that region. self-interest. you have others who have self-inter
foreign policy discussions. we're not a country that's in the mood to go invade anyone anymore. the tsarnaev brothers have been in the united states much longer. they were really immigrants and the fact that they come from chechnya, a place that's been at war with russia has in some ways softened the response. so far at least, i think we have not seen as much anti-muslim kind of talk as there was after 9/11. >> i think you're absolutely right. there's been some. there's been some of that almost knee jerk reaction, which obviously is a problem, but nothing like what occurred immediately after 9/11. isn't that right? >> yeah. i also think -- there are a billion muslims in the world. muslims come in every shape and color. in the american imagination, we have almost racialized what it means to be muslim. the fact these guys are from chechn chechnya under mines the level of racist reactions. to some degree part of what the anti-muslim sentiment after 9/11 was not only based on religion, but it was based on the idea of race and ethnicity. >> thanks very much for coming in. >> thank y
that is shi w fight that is also part of what our foreign policy tries to change with the historic rule of law to help with the justice system to create accountability. >> that we're still spending -- sending money if they were stealing and. >> i did not make that decision and i will certainly review any program we are engaged in now and if you have information of what we do now let me know immediately but one thing. all of this that we do senator paul is 1 penny on the dollar. i go through long list of things that we invest in i will give you an example we have stopped countless plots against our country, which had the fbi not cooperated and the cia and other entities and had not worked with the justice system's and interpol and the other things we work with we never would have done it. americans would have died and blown up and but for the discovery of the christmas bomber which came through these efforts we made our country safer. i have to tell you for the penny on the dollar will still ma t men even know yes something is abused just as it is abused of almost evygoernment. >> win the war b
and we could concentrate solely on traditional foreign policy threats like iran and syria and the instability of the korean peninsula. of course those threats remain large but this shows we are still a country in terrorist cross hairs both from abroad and from within. >> it sounds like you think this will reshape our focus as well. >> i think it will, no question about that. but at the same time we've got to make sure that we don't single out one particular community for attack and os t tracism. >> it's very common for them to sfwring we don't care at all to we exaggerate the threat. this is a common pendulum swing. it's also a mistake. and what we've also seen, just in the last week, is most of the coverage and most of the discussion by elites on both side of the aisle has been far more measured than what you just read by representative king. >> but it was measured because we were still a country in crisis. now that it seems that the crisis, perhaps, has subsided, now the nuts will come out. >> that's true, and this is where the media plays an even bigger role. in the mon
strategic allies like israel and brazil and poland reward for their cooperation with u.s. foreign policy by included in the face or -- visa waiver program? >> yeah, but i'm not in favor of living standards do. i think about to meet the standards and procedures under. spit out another standard has been what you describe, which is a 3% rejection rate as determined by the customs and immigration service. some countries go slightly beyond the cart -- some embassies have a more liberal policy with regard to applications than others do. with that in mind, instead of outsourcing decision-making to the customs and integration service, would you like to see input with regard to diplomatic and security and also economic considerations when these determinations are made? >> i would have to review the. let me just tell you that there are several established criteria in the act with respect to the current standards of the visa waiver. one is that the government provides reciprocal visa waivers. too, that the government issues secured machine readable passports. three, that the government certifies th
who the individual is, if they are a foreign national -- >> or a group of individuals. >> -- or a group of individuals, it's the way which that person then initially directly connects to our policy. >> do you think that's right with respect to law enforcement, do you think the division between the timothy mcveigh's of the world and muhammads of the world? >> i think that it doesn't really. i mean, i believe -- this is from my experience, you cannot and should not get tunnel vision looking for a specific, you know, because somebody has a particular faith, they pray five times a day, therefore, it's an international terrorism versus a timothy mcveigh type. we have seen so many cases where you have -- >> let me just say, it could be a left wing terrorist, we literally know nothing. someone who is mad at his or her ex-spouse who happened to be working the medic tent. >> what you need to focus on is the activity, the race, religion, you know, all of that really is irrelevant when it comes to you have to be able to prove the activity isn't furtherance of terror. >> this is w
to be critical of foreign policy because you believe as a citizen we have a thing called the constitution. all men are created equal. everyone from the beginning white, male. since then we've expanded. i'm not being sarcastic because in terms of the world to have any white male who is sovereign, the american people declared it rather than a king or queen. you couldn't of a king or queen taking your land away because they had given it to use your sovereign rights of everyone has a right to say what they should or should not do in our government we should expect that and yet at the beginning of the iraq war map when they spoke out against the war they had their invitation to talk to the baseball hall of fame and right after that i had a crew from fox news come to my house to interview me because i don't come to the studio anymore. if they want me they can come to my house. the first question the reporter susan sarandon onu think tim traders'. i turned to her and i said when did i stop beating my life. we want to let you know how this plays out we went on the air and i tried to explain how every
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)